H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Francisco Clavet vs Ronald Agenor H2H: 2-1
Francisco Clavet holds a 2–1 lead over Ronald Agenor in their ATP head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on clay, while Francisco Clavet leads 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Francisco Clavet won the 1996 Milan third round 6-0 7-6(2).
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
ESP
Age 57
Left-Handed
183 cm / 6'0"
H2H
2
–
1
3 main draw meetings
HAI
Age 61
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 29, 1996* | Milan | ATP 250 | R32 | Carpet | Francisco Clavet | 6-0 7-6(2) | Ronald Agenor | Match data |
| Jun 10, 1993* | Florence | ATP 250 | R32 | Clay | Ronald Agenor | 6-4 4-6 6-3 | Francisco Clavet | Match data |
| Aug 1, 1992* | San Marino | ATP 250 | SF | Clay | Francisco Clavet | 7-6(5) 7-5 | Ronald Agenor | Match data |
* Estimated match date where the exact historical date is unavailable.
Career Comparison
| Player | Current | Peak | Pts | Elo | W | L | Win % | GS | 1000 | Finals | 500 | 250 | Titles |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Francisco Clavet | #911 | #18 | 1,613 | 1,869 | 388 | 340 | 53.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 8 |
| Ronald Agenor | #1,507 | #22 | 984 | 1,895 | 215 | 251 | 46.1% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
Career Progression by Age
Seasons are aligned by the age each player spent most of that calendar year. GS and Titles are cumulative career totals through that season.
| Age | Francisco Clavet | Ronald Agenor | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 19 | 1988 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #290 | 1,459 | 0 | 0 | 1984 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #418 | 1,480 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1989 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #188 | 1,503 | 0 | 0 | 1985 | 17–14 | 54.8% | #49 | 1,657 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1990 | 11–15 | 42.3% | #90 | 1,576 | 0 | 1 | 1986 | 20–22 | 47.6% | #74 | 1,672 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1991 | 38–26 | 59.4% | #30 | 1,753 | 0 | 1 | 1987 | 25–20 | 55.6% | #44 | 1,736 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1992 | 39–29 | 57.4% | #22 | 1,757 | 0 | 1 | 1988 | 24–17 | 58.5% | #28 | 1,776 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1993 | 21–26 | 44.7% | #100 | 1,661 | 0 | 1 | 1989 | 24–17 | 58.5% | #37 | 1,768 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 1994 | 27–19 | 58.7% | #38 | 1,795 | 0 | 1 | 1990 | 33–25 | 56.9% | #29 | 1,815 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 1995 | 31–27 | 53.4% | #49 | 1,740 | 0 | 2 | 1991 | 16–27 | 37.2% | #74 | 1,643 | 0 | 3 |
| 27 | 1996 | 37–28 | 56.9% | #34 | 1,742 | 0 | 3 | 1992 | 5–16 | 23.8% | #132 | 1,538 | 0 | 3 |
| 28 | 1997 | 41–24 | 63.1% | #33 | 1,832 | 0 | 5 | 1993 | 17–25 | 40.5% | #58 | 1,600 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 1998 | 43–26 | 62.3% | #30 | 1,809 | 0 | 7 | 1994 | 15–23 | 39.5% | #71 | 1,578 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | 1999 | 30–27 | 52.6% | #38 | 1,701 | 0 | 7 | 1995 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #146 | 1,585 | 0 | 3 |
| 31 | 2000 | 28–30 | 48.3% | #49 | 1,627 | 0 | 7 | 1996 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #326 | 1,528 | 0 | 3 |
| 32 | 2001 | 23–27 | 46.0% | #51 | 1,620 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2002 | 11–22 | 33.3% | #113 | 1,564 | 0 | 8 | 1998 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #237 | 1,533 | 0 | 3 |
| 34 | 2003 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #358 | 1,567 | 0 | 8 | 1999 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #96 | 1,522 | 0 | 3 |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2000 | 6–16 | 27.3% | #137 | 1,430 | 0 | 3 |
| 36 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2001 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #188 | 1,466 | 0 | 3 |